FACTS:
The subject property is a 65 sq.m. lot located
in the San Pedro Tunasan Homesite. This Homesite was acquired by the
Republic of the Philippines in 1931. Apolinario Hermosilla(Apolinario) was
occupying a lot in such homesite until his death in 1964. He caused the subdivision
of the lots into two, Lot 12 and Lot 19, with the same area of 341 sq. m. The
65sq.m. subject of this controversy forms part of Lot 19.In 1962,
Apolinario made a deed of assignment transferring possession of Lot
19in favor of his grandson, Jaime Remoquillo. The Land Tenure Administration
later found that Lot 19 is still available for qualified applicants. Jaime,
being its occupant filed an application in 1963.
On that same year, Apolinario conveyed Lot 12 to his
son Salvador. He filed for anapplication to purchase the said lot, which
the LTA granted
in 1971.In 1972, Jaime and Salvador made a
Kasunduan whereby Jaime transferredownership of the 65 sq.m. in Lot
19 in favor of Salvador. In 1986, the NHA (then LTA)awarded Lot 19 to Jaime,
for which he and his wife were issued a title. The petitioners filed
for the annulment of the title on the ground of fraud becauseby the virtue of
the Kasunduan, the 65 sq.m. in Lot 19 were already conveyed to
Salvador.
The trial court held that the petitioners were
co-owners of the subject
propertyand allowed for the action for specific performance. The CA reversed the trial court’sdecision,
rendering the Kasunduan void because at the time of its execution (1972), the
lotwas still owned by the Republic of the Philippines. Hence, no right was
transferred to
Jaime,who was awarded the lot in 1986 and no right was transferred by Salvador to the
petitioners. Also, the CA held that the action
had prescribed, it having been filed in 1992,more than four
years from the issuance of the title to the spouses Remoquillo.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
(1)Whether or not the property was acquired by
the spouses Remoquillo throughfraud which by force of law, considered them
trustees of an implied trusts
(2)Whether or not the prescriptive period to
recover the property obtained byfraud is applicable in the case at bar
HELD:
(1) NO. The property was previously a public land,
petitioners have no personality to impute fraud or misrepresentation against the
State or violation of the law.
If the title was in fact fraudulently obtained, it is
the State which should file the suit to
recover the property through the Office of the Solicitor General. The title originated
from a grant by the government, hence, its cancellation is a matter between the
grantor and the grantee.
At all events, for an action for
reconveyance based on fraud to prosper, the
petitioners must prove by clear and convincing evidence not only his title to
the property but also the fact of fraud. Fraud is never presumed.
Intentional acts to deceive and deprive another of
his right, or in some manner injure him must be
specifically alleged and proved by the petitioners by clear and convincing evidence.
Petitioners failed to discharge this burden.
(2) NO. From the allegations of the Complaint,
petitioners seek the reconveyance of the property based on implied
trust. The prescriptive period for the reconveyanceof fraudulently
registered real property is 10 years, reckoned from the date of the
issuance of the certificate of title, if the plaintiff
is not in possession, but imprescriptible if he is in possession
of the property.It is undisputed that petitioners’ houses occupy the questioned
property and thatrespondents have not been in possession thereof. Since there
was no actual need to reconvey the property as petitioners remained in
possession thereof, the action took the nature of a suit for quieting of title,
it having been filed to enforce an alleged implied trust after Jaime refused to
segregate title over Lot 19.One who is in actual possession of a piece of
land claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his possession is
disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate
his right. From the body of the complaint, this type of action denotes
imprescriptibility.
In Summary:
The CA, reversing the decision of the trial
court, held that the ‘Kasunduan’ was void because at the time of
its execution in 1972, the Republic of the Philippines was still the
owner of Lot 19, hence, no right thereover was transmitted by Jaime who was awarded the
said lot in 1986, and consequently, no right was transmitted
by Salvador through succession to petitioners. And it found
no evidence of fraud in Jaime's act of having Lot 19, including the questioned
property, registered in his and his wife's name in 1987.
As priorly stated, when the Kasunduan was
executed in 1972 by Jaime in favor of Salvador - petitioners'
predecessor-in-interest - Lot 19, of which the
questioned property forms part, was still owned by the
Republic. Nemo dat quod no habet, Nobody can give what he does not
possess. Jaime could not thus have transferred anything to Salvador via
the Kasunduan.
No comments:
Post a Comment